Archery units slaughtering firearms units

[jtwood]

I'd prefer to see old-school archery units be given the ability to break 1upt and stack with one ground unit. They would offer a first strike volley on either offense or defense that would aid to the unit they're paired with. Or maybe archer protection should be a first-level promotion. Then units produced via barracks would be able to have it. Nothing should be ranged before catapults/trebuchets.

 

[Gustave5436]

Oh and the Japanese who got pwned by guns. And the Native Americans.

Something seems to be a bit wrong with your history, unless nuclear bombs and plagues count as guns.

Which makes perfect sense if you ignore the fact that Europeans often played one tribe against the other and brought a hellish plague to the Americas along with everything else.

And many of those conquests didn't even involve much gunpowder; Cortez's exceedingly lucky conquest of Tenochtitlan, for instance.

Because the British were using rifles during that war, not muskets, and Zulus kept using human wave tactics against fortified positions.

And they were spearmen, not archers.

 

[Scramble]

So... essentially you guys want this game to be a fast tech to gunpowder, in which you wipe the floor with everyone nearby you until you come across someone who also has gunpowder?

This game already has an issue with the phenomenon that I like to refer to as "The Slippery Slope" I would like to make a full post on this, but I need more game experience to make a thorough thread on the matter.

Basically: The Slippery Slope refers to the idea that those in the winning position only get stronger and those in the losing position are almost completely unable to catch up, and just end up falling further and further behind.

Invalidating all older troops because you have a gun would simply make this problem worse.

 

[Venger]

Let me make it REAL clear what the problem truly is.

No unit stacking.

Why? Because the NATURAL course for the archer would be in formation with other units, firing into adjacent hexes without direct engagement. BUT, YOU CANNOT STACK, so the archers have to be behind the melee units, and to be any use at all need range. Therefore, they gave archers a range of two hexes. Now that they have two hex range, and in order to make longbowmen special, a ridiculous three hex range, you get combat anomalies such as this.

Solution - archers have a range of ONE, but are stacked in with melee and flank units. Civ:CTP had this figured out a decade ago. We keep inventing the same...square...wheel... with CivX.

I would rather charge across a field against Musketmen, but would rather charge a close line of archers.

 

[Gath]

This is why giving archers a ranged attack was always silly. Civ 4's system was better.

<shrug> civ 5 isn't trying to be deep though. They're just trying to be fun. As annoying to the grognard in us all as it is, oh well. I just wish the Ai was smarter with its units.

 

[Elenhil]

And just for the record, during WWII on one of the Pacific islands (Iwo Jima?) the Japanese fired indirectly with their machine guns. The put the machine guns on the back side of hills, fired at an angle and recorded where they hit. Thus the guns were able to attack the the US marines in front of the hill while never being exposed to US return fire. (Well, the spotter for the machine guns was at risk.)

Sounds like something for the Mythbusters to debunk.

 

[Elenhil]

I hear lots of bows > guns arguments, and yet history shows us that Europeans with muskets and steel swords slaughtered one native group after another on four continents

It was BY FAR the question of tactics, strategy and diplomatics rather than that of technology. Native commanders ofter proved to possess the tactical skill equal to the current AI, so the Europeans were able to pwn then.

 

[jagdtigerciv]

Ranged units will be nerfed soon I imagine. At least in their damage output.

 

[Scramble]

Or just stop being a total idiot when assaulting fortified positions? Stop upgrading your Crossbowmen to riflemen? Start flanking properly with mounted units, or bombarding from the sea? Stop assaulting choke points and falling into traps?

This is an issue that has everything to do with Game Balance... not reality balance. If Riflemen slaughter every single unit that comes before them and are not threatened even slightly by any opponents, even those with better positioning and tactics, then the game would be paper thin...
As soon as people uncross their arms and take their fingers out of their ears, and begin to actually look at Civ V as Civ V, then people will realize that while there are many advantages to having a massive army of very powerful Riflemen, you are sacrificing some utility for this raw brute strength. Modern age is a slow transition... You give up a LOT around the gunpowder age, and it takes some time to get the equivalents back...
Spearmen, Swordsman, Horse Archers, Catapults and Longswordsmen make for a very deep tactical early game.
Paratroopers, Planes, Battleships, Rocket Artillery and missiles make for a very deep tactical late game...
There is a transition period.

Now it can either be smoothed out by adding in a ranged unit in this transition, or it can stay like this, and you can be forced to adjust while you tech for units that fill the holes in your military.

I prefer the later personally.

 

[pcasey]

Ranged units will be nerfed soon I imagine. At least in their damage output.

One thing you could plausibly do for the not artillery ranged units is to change their fire mode to reactive.

if they're attacked, they get one free ranged volley then melee.
If an *adjacent* melee unit is attacked they get one free ranged volley.

That way you'd have to advance into archery fire, rather than letting the archers stand off at 2 hex range and burn your army down. It'd also encourage mixed armies with powerful melee units in front backed up by archers, which is a more interesting tactical composition than the current optimal build of "nothing but longbows".

 

[TLF]

In Civ 4 the crossbow has a strength of 6 with a 50% bonus against melee.
The Musket has a strength of 9 and no bonus.

So, they both have a strength of 9 against melee units.

 

[Ogrelord]

how about Gunpowder units ( except for the musketmen and minutemen units ) able to return fire if they're being attack by pre-gunpower era range units?

 

[Arkad]

All of these historic examples show just how stupid this is. Gunpowder units losing to archers. It is almost as bad as this one game I played, were the "Knight" was nowhere near a strong as the "Queen". I mean, here this civilian royalty unit could basically fly across the screen unchecked, and the armored "Knight", on a horse no less, couldn't keep up (or even go in a straight line).

The lack of realism in these games kills the enjoyment.

Was my sarcastic chess reference too subtle? Honestly, I don't understand this argument. Were players expecting a tactical, realistic sim?

 

[jtwood]

Makes no sense to me, either.

I, for one, usually demand realism from games, but you can't expect a grandiose world scope to have microbattle realism. It's simply not possible.

 

[hewhoknowsall]

Or just stop being a total idiot when assaulting fortified positions?

Since when does attacking a city with crossbowmen in it during a war by using mechanized infantry in APCs with reinforced composite armor plating and automatic machine guns an idiotic move?

Stop upgrading your Crossbowmen to riflemen?

Which kills the game balance because then you have medieval units dominating warfare when they should have been obsolete.

Start flanking properly with mounted units,

Mechanized infantry ARE like a modern version of light cavalry. Nice try though.

or bombarding from the sea?

Except that the city's uber longbowmen will be able to match your battleships in range.

Stop assaulting choke points and falling into traps?

A crossbowmen at a chokepoint vs a mechanized infantry force; the crossbowmen would not fare well in a fight. At all.

This is an issue that has everything to do with Game Balance... not reality balance. If Riflemen slaughter every single unit that comes before them and are not threatened even slightly by any opponents, even those with better positioning and tactics, then the game would be paper thin...

Riflemen losing to crossbowmen once in a while makes sense, but mechanized infantry losing to crossbowmen is ridiculous.

As soon as people uncross their arms and take their fingers out of their ears, and begin to actually look at Civ V as Civ V, then people will realize that while there are many advantages to having a massive army of very powerful Riflemen, you are sacrificing some utility for this raw brute strength. Modern age is a slow transition... You give up a LOT around the gunpowder age, and it takes some time to get the equivalents back...

Which doesn't make much sense.

Spearmen, Swordsman, Horse Archers, Catapults and Longswordsmen make for a very deep tactical early game.
Paratroopers, Planes, Battleships, Rocket Artillery and missiles make for a very deep tactical late game...
There is a transition period.

But why? Besides, why bother with the transition period? You could ignore the transition units and tech up to the modern units, which still occasionally lose to medieval crossbowmen.

Now it can either be smoothed out by adding in a ranged unit in this transition, or it can stay like this, and you can be forced to adjust while you tech for units that fill the holes in your military.

I prefer the later personally.

Why bother to make holes and then repair them when the game lets you stick with overpowered and unrealistic medieval units and then use modern units when you get them?

 

[Sock Bramson]

Um... I'm gonna have to invoke "pics or it didn't happen" on your xbow>mech infantry argument, hewhok.

I believe you meant a city with A crossbowMAN in it, not crossbowMEN (1UpT, remember?). What's stopping you from wiping the floor with any xbows chilling outside the city? Then, the enemy can only plink off around 2 hp at most with their last xbow and city bombardment. (I've regularly seen lower-tech ranged units do 0 damage to even normal infantry that had at least somewhat of a defensive position)

Even a xbow at a chokepoint (on a hill, with a forest) gets absolutely mashed by attacks from pre-gunpowder units. Mech infantry mash, puree, and consume. Scramble's advice was for the early gunpowder era, where muskets can still destroy xbows as long as you don't leave them out in the open to get shot. Learn to adapt; it's not that hard.

Also, how the hell does a transition period not make sense? (from both a gameplay and realism level, to boot?) Do you want to go directly from medieval to modern? That would completely screw up the balance of the game. As it stands, it makes PERFECT sense that units from one era can somewhat (and I stress "somewhat") compete against units from the next era IF USED PROPERLY. If used improperly, xbows die very easily. So do muskets. So do mech infantry, for that matter, but that's against other modern units. Against older units, especially medieval ones, the "attack" command works just fine.

One last question: did you send a lone mech infantry to take out an entire civ or something? If you did, then yes, it may have lost to an entire army of lower-tech units. But, if you support it with more mech infantry, some artillery, planes, battleships, etc. (you know, all of those strong units you can build) you can win against even modern armies as long as you use a modicum of strategy.

 

[w00tm0ng3r]

Um... I'm gonna have to invoke "pics or it didn't happen" on your xbow>mech infantry argument, hewhok.

I believe you meant a city with A crossbowMAN in it, not crossbowMEN (1UpT, remember?). What's stopping you from wiping the floor with any xbows chilling outside the city? Then, the enemy can only plink off around 2 hp at most with their last xbow and city bombardment. (I've regularly seen lower-tech ranged units do 0 damage to even normal infantry that had at least somewhat of a defensive position)

Even a xbow at a chokepoint (on a hill, with a forest) gets absolutely mashed by attacks from pre-gunpowder units. Mech infantry mash, puree, and consume. Scramble's advice was for the early gunpowder era, where muskets can still destroy xbows as long as you don't leave them out in the open to get shot. Learn to adapt; it's not that hard.

Also, how the hell does a transition period not make sense? (from both a gameplay and realism level, to boot?) Do you want to go directly from medieval to modern? That would completely screw up the balance of the game. As it stands, it makes PERFECT sense that units from one era can somewhat (and I stress "somewhat") compete against units from the next era IF USED PROPERLY. If used improperly, xbows die very easily. So do muskets. So do mech infantry, for that matter, but that's against other modern units. Against older units, especially medieval ones, the "attack" command works just fine.

One last question: did you send a lone mech infantry to take out an entire civ or something? If you did, then yes, it may have lost to an entire army of lower-tech units. But, if you support it with more mech infantry, some artillery, planes, battleships, etc. (you know, all of those strong units you can build) you can win against even modern armies as long as you use a modicum of strategy.

Seconded. Seriously dude, if you're losing mechanical infantry to crossbowmen, that's your problem, not the game's. I mean, that takes TALENT right there. This is a turn based game so it's not like you could even just go AFK for 3 months while the crossbowmen scratch the paint off it with hypothetical unlimited ammo crossbows.

 

[Stormbolt]

While you do have a bit of a point, you have to remember that muskets aren't really that great of weapons. They took a while to load, were pretty inaccurate, and didn't even always fire. Bows, however, can be loaded and fired much quicker provided the wielder has enough practice. So from a realist perspective, it's not too outlandish to me.

I do understand how it's a bit of a gameplay issue though. Perhaps they could make a Renaissance-era ranged unit to accompany the Musketmen, and have the Crossbows promote to them.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Answer is simple. Legolas beats Sammity Sam.

 

[DioAurion]

Shocked this has gone on for 8 pages already. There are so many other concerns that should be discussed about this game and this is what draws out the grand debate?